Is there a 50-60 year cycle for this sort of thing?

I'm getting more of a Manchurian Candidate vibe from this than Strangelove.

"There are exactly 221/57/19 communists. . . ."

I'm surprised it took them so long to make the connection. They've been saying for 4 years that Democrat = terrorist, traitor, etc. They've also been saying the CIA has been infiltrated by left-wing Democrat Bush haters. The Republicans are just connecting the dots.

The slur on Catholics makes it even more special.

Have Muslim jihadists penetrated the CIA? Of course not.

Of course they have. You want the proof? Here it is:

CIA tried to hide the fact that the National Ground Intelligence Center reported "Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent which remain hazardous and potentially lethal." In other words, WMDs were found in Iraq. Only with the courage of Rick Santorum was this information from the secret CIA report released. CIA agents were simply politicizing intelligence by cherry picking classified information which served their anti-Bush anti-war on Terrorism point of view while ignoring others which didn't.

What better proof could there be that the CIA is controlled by Al-Qaeda?

KEVIN DRUM: Have Muslim jihadists penetrated the CIA?

Oops! Too slow.

Note to sportsfan79: this is an example of what I was talking about in the "Black Hair" thread.

Reactionaries.

Am I the only one that cannot understand the right wing campaigns against first the FBI (during the Clinton years) and now the CIA? These agencies are not exactly famous for being places where Democrats, let alone liberals, could get hired, let alone make a career. In the early 90's the cliche was that you needed to be a good faithful Mormon to make a career in the FBI and either a good faithful Catholic or ex-Espiscopalian-gone-fundamentalist to do the same in the CIA, and a Republican party membership was expected of all. But now? Is there something about promoting law and order and trying to collect accurate intelligence that is turning all of these pious and conservative lawmen and spies into... liberals?

Hell, 49% of the population are commie islamo-fascists!

And as Al points out, aQ is somehow able to control King George, preventing him from pointing out the weapons that were in Iraq that could have KILLED US ALL!!!

"Al" should add the following disclaimer from all of his posts:

Please do not reply to this message. It was sent from an unattended mailbox.

Anti Bush people never give up. For 2 years they've trumpeted the statement the Iraq had no WMDs. Now that WMDs have been found, they say they meant some other type of WMDs. These don't count.

Look, there's no doubt that the Bush was wrong. His administration way overstated the immediate threat of WMDs in Iraq. They described specific weapon systems that turned out not to exist. Bush had admitted that he was wrong.

Those who claimed there were no WMDs at all should follow Bush's example and admit that such an absolute statement was wrong.

P.S. the fact that these particular chemical weapons remained undiscovered for so many months raises the possibility that other WMDs may still be out there

As Ackerman said, the Bushies have been seething against perceived obstructionism -- you and I would call it a "sense of obligation to at least try to report the facts" for three years. They've finally found something that's nasty enough and easy enough to repeat that they can hand it to their imps, like Al.

Bears repeating that this is all part of the Dolchstosslegende - the "myth of the stab in the back" that feeds the angry conservative. Which basically says the only way their noble and just cause can falter is through treachery from within. "Treachery" means anything other than unflinching loyalty.

Now that WMDs have been found, Now that WMDs have been found

go read Dear Leaders 2003 SOTU. put those numbers and types in column A. put what's been found in column B. reconcile.

Now Kevin, that post practically writes itself. We expect more effort the rest of the day!

I should have said "CIA obstructionism"

dw: I think they're pining for Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover. Those were the days.

Al the operative word in your post is "degraded."

In this context the word refers to old, out of date weapons that are probably more dangerous to the people handling them than to anybody they might have been shot toward. In short they weren't the real live "good to go" weapons Bush was looking for under his desk or in Iraq.

This isn't the worst of the conspiracies. There are stories that governments are going to add FLORIDE to our drinking water! Do you know what that will do to ...

Oh, wait. That was a ultra-right-wing conspiracy from 1958.

Never mind.

The neocons' hostility to mainstream intelligence services goes back at least to the 1970's. There was an intelligence organization called "Team B" which was largely populated by some of the same neocons who hold power today. They made a lot of claims about the growing threat of the Soviet Union that were shown to be dead wrong by the CIA, among others. The neocons never got over their resentment, hence the wild accusations being thrown around today.

I do believe in ghosts. I do. I do. I do.

This sort of claim--that any institution with which a conservative disagrees is infected with mortal enemies--is almost as good as the claim by some that they know or that the government knows where the real WMDs are. If, for instance, some are so certain that they are in Syria, why wouldn't anybody, you know, DIG THEM UP?

Do I think that AlQ or similar (ooooh, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, take your pick of nasties) have infiltrated the CIA? Nah, although I’m sure they’d love to.

However, do I think that there are factions within the CIA whose first allegiance is not to the well being and protection of the United States? Sure. anyone else ever worked in a bureaucracy? The first allegiance is always to that part of the bureaucracy which houses that individual. It’s inevitable and we’ve known it since long before C. Northcote Parkinson started to write it all down in the 1950s.

I guess since David Kaye said at the recent Congressional hearings that the degraded WMD found in Iraq are less toxic than materials under his kitchen sink, he must also be Aq, too. My God, they have infiltrated. Not David Kaye toooooooo.

What a freak show. Pennsylvania will end up voting in Casey out of embrassment.

Grasping at straws AL ? ha ha h heh ahhehah!!!! What a Bush!!

This reads more like an Ann Coulter-like method of muddying the waters, where everything Ann Coulter says is almost literally true if you replace the word 'liberal' in her books with 'conservative' and vice versa. In this case it's better to say Al-Qaeda is a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry and corporate feudalists.

P.S. the fact that these particular chemical weapons remained undiscovered for so many months raises the possibility that other WMDs may still be out there

*sigh* These fake WMD (degraded chemical weapons from the 1980s) have not been "undiscovered" until now -- they were discovered right after the invasion. The only thing new about them is the fact that crazy conspiracy theorists Santorum (ew!) and Hoekstra decided to spin a fantasy about them in a recent press conference.

Everyone here exept for AL and AH know that if WMD was found every rightwing Neo-con nut ball would fly over to Iraq with Gas Masks on to get there picture taken with there prized WMD.Did I miss the Pony show ?

However, do I think that there are factions within the CIA whose first allegiance is not to the well being and protection of the United States? Sure. anyone else ever worked in a bureaucracy? The first allegiance is always to that part of the bureaucracy which houses that individual.

Of course, by bureaucracy, we should only read "CIA." Not "DoD", "NSA, "DHS" or, heaven forbid, "White House." THOSE bureaucrats set aside their own interests in selfless pursuit of the national good.

ex-liberal,

There's more active nerve poison in a can of RAID than in those Iraq-Iran War shells. Perhaps they were WMD's at one time, but today they are historical artifacts. They aren't the thousand of tons of chemical weapons Rumsfeld said existed at the time of the war ("we know where they are"), nor are they evidence of the active chemical weapons program Iraq was supposed to have.

Your claim is like the silly semantic game a guilty teenager plays. The level of desperation transcends shrillness up to dog-whistle pitch.

ex-liberal and his crazy conspiracy theories: P.S. the fact that these particular chemical weapons remained undiscovered for so many months raises the possibility that other WMDs may still be out there

P.S. perhaps you can tell us why none of the Iraqi scientists, technicians, soldiers and bureacrats we've caught -- all of whom, if they told us what we wanted to hear, would be rewarded with new identities, a life in America, and a mansion in Malibu -- have all denied the existence of these weapons. Why, when it would be in their best interest to claim otherwise?

And not only have no weapons ever been found, no facilities necessary to make those weapons have been discovered either. You may be able to hide a bomb, but it's a bit tougher to hide the entire factory necessary to make it.

Yes indeedy, we invaded Irak, devoting lives and treasure to remove Saddam from his possession of moldy old dead shells from the late 80s.

Round and round we go. These dead "WMDs" have been thoroughly debunked and never remotely squared with the administration histrionics. Haven't we moved on? We invaded Irak to liberate the people remember?

The desperation to legitimize the tragedy that is Bush's Iraq is getting quite pathetic really.

Yeah, but what Hoekstra and Santorum left out of their recent claims was the fact that we've discovered Saddam's Intercontinental Howitzer (disassembled and buried in several Baghdad rose gardens).

The massive cannon would've permitted Saddam to fire those chemical shells all the way to Peoria.

where everything Ann Coulter says...

was probably said or written by someone else whom she neglected to cite.

Now that WMDs have been found,

WsMD have not been found.

they say they meant some other type of WMDs. These don't count.

Actually, we say we mean the exact type that the Bush regime was claiming existed when Cheney said that Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons" and Condi Rice said "we can't allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" -- nuclear weapons. The Bush regime made specific claims that Iraq had acquired and/or was on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons, claims which were all revealed to be completely and utterly false.

Infiltrated by al quaeda? Judging by results, probably.

Group think to one side, and granting that everybody makes mistakes, as near as I can tell the CIA has always worked hard to uncover intelligence describing objective reality. The neo-cons, it seems, have always worked hard to uncover intelligence that fits their world view. It shouldn't be surprising that the neo-cons think the CIA is filled with traitors. The CIA doesn't necessarily ignore inconvenient facts.

Now intelligence describing objective reality can be helpful when you are trying to figure out what a powerful enemy might do next. Intelligence supporting an existing world view can be very helpful if you trying to shape public opinion to support some war you have already desided to fight.

...raises the possibility that other WMDs may still be out there.

Then Curt Weldon better get his fat fucking ass a'diggin' I say.

Bush loves Osama, Osama loves Bush

Stefan,

Actually, we say we mean the exact type that the Bush regime was claiming existed when Cheney said that Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons"

Cheney didn't say that. Quote the whole sentence.

Once again, the Repugs unleash an abusrd theory that we've barely heard a hint of until it springs fully formed from some Santorum or other, like the bilious love child of Karl Rove and Ann Coulter (Couler? It Damn Near Kilter).

Ignoring this shit doesn't quite work, John Kerry realized too late. But shouldn't the dems be mocking it loudly? I mean, they should be putting out ads with Rick Santorum's greatest man-on-dog hits and be encouraging America to laugh at loud at these baboons.

We've tried the reasonable approach, but people like Hoekstra are encouraging our inner Jay Lenos.

The whole sentence is "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

For GOP, with love:

He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

From here

Took all of about 10 seconds to Google.

Here's the whole sentence, plus the preceding one at no additional charge:

"He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

The standard excuse that this meant to refer to "programs" rather than "weapons" is rather implausible, since in the same interview Cheney claimed "We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons..." (that is, he described efforts to build nuclear weapons as something we "know", so its implausible that he meant to later say that, in addition to what we "know", we also "believe, in fact" that he such programs.

...raises the possibility that other WMDs may still be out there.

Let's assume for a second that that's true, crazy though it is. If that's true, that means we don't control these weapons, which means that they're available for anyone else -- including Al Qaeda terrorists, Iranian intelligence, Iraqi resistance, etc. -- to pick up. So the whole premise of the invasion, which was to secure these mythical weapons so they couldn't be used against us, would then be a failure, since not only would we not have secured these weapons, we would have as good as handed them to our worst enemies.

here's the whole interview.

he did say what is alleged. but later, when pressed by Russert, Cheney says he misspoke.

cmdicely,

The standard excuse that that this meant to refer to "programs" rather than "weapons"

Huh? "Excuse" for what? And I wasn't talking about any supposed misstatement of "weapons" for "programs." The point is that Cheney didn't say that Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons," as Stefan falsely claimed, but only that "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." I know you have trouble distinguishing statements of belief from claims of fact when it suits your purposes to pretend that they are the same thing, but try real hard this time.

but later, when pressed by Russert, Cheney says he misspoke.

Yes, well, it depends on what the meaning of "nuclear weapons" is. For most people, of course, the meaning of "nuclear weapons" is "nuclear weapons."

For Cheney, the Humpty Dumpty of our through the looking glass regime, when he uses the phrase "nuclear weapons" it means just what he chooses it to mean -- neither more nor less.

P.S. the fact that these particular chemical weapons remained undiscovered for so many months raises the possibility that other WMDs may still be out there

Indeed, there almost certainly are more rusted, degraded, and useless chemical munitions lost or abandoned during the Iran-Iraq war buried in the sands of Iraq. Turns out we have also found rusted, degraded and useless chemical weapons buried in the District of Columbia, too:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so01tucker

...what was your point again?

Stefan,

Yes, well, it depends on what the meaning of "nuclear weapons" is.

No, it doesn't depend on that. Another lie.

Oh that's just sad. Even for GOOP that's a new low. Clutch at that straw, boy -- you've almost got it!

Keep lying, Stefan. You're so good at it.

so GOP = Jay ?

here's the whole interview.

Actually, that's a different interview, six months later, which includes an excerpt from the interview in which he made the statement.

A transcript of the original interview is here.

he did say what is alleged. but later, when pressed by Russert, Cheney says he misspoke.

Yeah. Six months later he claims that he had repeatedly referred to "weapons capability" in the original program, and that that's what he meant to say was reconstituted.

There are, howerver, two minor problems with that statement. Cheney made zero references to "weapons capability" in the original interview (which is about as far as you can get from referring to it "repeatedly"), and there was no more basis for a belief that Saddam had "reconstituted nuclear weapons capability" than that he had "reconstituted nuclear weapons".

so GOP = Jay ?

Naw. Very different writing styles. While both are loony in their own way, Jay is far less able to construct a sentence or even spell all that well.

Huh? "Excuse" for what?

The commonly cited excuse by Cheney defenders on the Right trying to rationalize the ludicrous statement Cheney made that is the focus of the instant discussion.

The point is that Cheney didn't say that Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons," as Stefan falsely claimed, but only that "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

So? A claim of belief used to justify action is, necessarily, implicitly a claim not just of belief but of a basis in fact for such belief adequate to justify the action.

Even Cheney later backpedalled from the statement, GOP, but you keep illustrating the trend among the Kool-Aid drinkers on the Right that Kevin writes about in the post that spawned this thread...

Keep lying, Stefan. You're so good at it.

Well, if he was, he'd be one step ahead of you—you do plenty of it, but you aren't any good at it.

Actually, that's a different interview

ah, you're right. i wondered why i'd never seen the recant immediately following the statement, until today.

i blame google.

Back in the days when I held Q-clearance, I submitted reports on required foreign travel to the Atomic Energy Agency, and was often interviewed by CIA agents on their contents. I often asked the agents where they had gone to college. Invariably, the answer was one Ivy League school or another. When quizzed by FBI agents, I often asked the same question. Invariably, the answer was a Catholic College or University. Since the attacks on our Intellegence agencies have focussed on the CIA, I have come to the conclusion that the hiring practices of tjhese two agencies have remained the same for the past 50 years .

cmdicely,

There are, howerver, two minor problems with that statement.

Those "problems" aren't just "minor," they're non-existent. Do please elaborate on the Dictionary of Cmdicely distinction between "weapons" and "weapons capability." Then explain how you have determined that Cheney was using that retarded dictionary.

Well, if he was,

There's no if about it.

but you aren't any good at it.

You're the most frequent and worst liar in this blog.

Those "problems" aren't just "minor," they're non-existent.

Really? So, to take the one of the two you, for some reason, omit any discussion of after claiming both are non-existent, you think zero references is fairly described as "repeated references"?

Certainly, if you believe that, I can see why you'd believe the complete absence of any basis in fact for the belief in "reconstituted" "nuclear weapons capablity" makes it reasonable to use the statement of such a belief to support a major policy action, like an invasion.

ex-lib: raises the possibility that other WMDs may still be out there

"we know where they are."

- don rumsfeld 3/30/03

You're the most frequent and worst liar in this blog.

Wait, I thought that was me? Ah well...bested again....

I don't know why, but I'm getting a kick out of GOOP today. Obviously something has him quite upset...

cmdicely,

The commonly cited excuse by Cheney defenders on the Right trying to rationalize the ludicrous statement Cheney made that is the focus of the instant discussion.

The idea that there is anything to "excuse" exists only in your fevered imagination.

So?

I already told you "so." So, Stefan lied about what Cheney said.

A claim of belief used to justify action is, necessarily, implicitly a claim not just of belief but of a basis in fact for such belief adequate to justify the action.

Nonsense. What "basis in fact" is there for your beliefs about your moral duties that are "adequate" to justify your moral behavior?

Even Cheney later backpedalled from the statement, GOP,

No he didn't, cmdicely.

but you keep illustrating the trend among the Kool-Aid drinkers on the Right ....

You have drunk so long and so deeply from the well of loony-left Kool-Aid that it's coming out of your ears.

All this hysterical anger can't be good for GOOP's blood pressure...

cmdicely,

Really?

Yes, really.

So, to take the one of the two you, for some reason, omit any discussion of after claiming both are non-existent, you think zero references is fairly described as "repeated references"?

No, I think repeated references is fairly described as "repeated references." Do you even know what the word "references" means? And I'm still waiting for that Dictionary of Cmdicely difference between "weapons" and "weapons capability."

Steam has been coming out of Stefan's ears for as long as he's been posting here. He lives in a country and is surrounded by people that he hates.

What "basis in fact" is there for your beliefs about your moral duties that are "adequate" to justify your moral behavior?

The subject here is beliefs about questions of fact; fundamental moral beliefs are, of course, not justified by reference to matters of fact.

But, the existence of "weapons" or "weapons capability" is not a question of fundamental morality, but of fact.

Even Cheney later backpedalled from the statement, GOP,

No he didn't, cmdicely.

That's hilarious. Are you now claiming that Cheney did not, later, claim he had misspoken about "nuclear weapons" and meant to refer to "nuclear weapons capability" not "nuclear weapons"?

The idea that there is anything to "excuse" exists only in your fevered imagination.

This is demonstrably untrue, as it clearly exists in the beliefs, at least, of those offering the excuse, as well.

cmdicely,

The subject here is beliefs about questions of fact;

No, the subject of my question was your absurd statement:

"A claim of belief used to justify action is, necessarily, implicitly a claim not just of belief but of a basis in fact for such belief adequate to justify the action."

Do you now wish to retract this ridiculous claim? If not, answer my question: What "basis in fact" is there for your beliefs about your moral duties that are "adequate" to justify your moral behavior?

Wait, I thought that was me?

No, Stefan, GOP says you are a good liar.

Actually, we say we mean the exact type that the Bush regime was claiming existed when Cheney said that Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons" and Condi Rice said "we can't allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" -- nuclear weapons. The Bush regime made specific claims that Iraq had acquired and/or was on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons, claims which were all revealed to be completely and utterly false.

Stefan - I agree that the types of weapons claimed by the Bushies weren't there. They were wrong, and Bush had admitted as much.

It's too bad that anti-Bush people have overstated their complaint a bit. If they all said it your way, I'd have no problem.

IMHO the absence of WMDs weakened the case for overthrowing Saddam, but Saddam still had the intention of acquire nukes. It was prudent to overthrow him well before he got a nuclear arsenal. Just imagine Saddam invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, and threatening to use nukes if anyone interfered.

cmdicely,

That's hilarious.

You're hilarious.

Are you now claiming that Cheney did not, later, claim he had misspoken about "nuclear weapons"

No, I'm claiming that correcting an instance of misspeaking is not "backpedalling."

This is demonstrably untrue,

No it isn't.

Those "problems" aren't just "minor," they're non-existent. Do please elaborate on the Dictionary of Cmdicely distinction between "weapons" and "weapons capability." Then explain how you have determined that Cheney was using that retarded dictionary.

You are a stupid shit, GOP. The difference between "weapons" and "weapons capability" is quite clear. Only sexually-frustrated college republican trolls like yourself have a problem with that (and getting laid, but that's OT).

Here is the difference:

Almost every industrialized nation in the world has the capability to produce biological and/or chemical weapons. Hence, they are said to have the ability to produce BW/CW weapons. Simply put, they have BW/CW weapons capability.

A few countries have actually produced them, countries like the U.S., Russia, Iran, etc. These countries are said to have CW/BW weapons.

See the difference?

Let me make it a little simpler. Thanks to the 2nd amendment, each American has the capability to own a firearm. We all have "weapons capability" when it comes to firearms.

The Americans who actually purchase firearms have weapons, not just the capability.

Do you now wish to retract this ridiculous claim?

The claim was offered in the discussion about a belief about an issue of fact, and was intended to apply in such a context. Standing alone, out of context, it would be overbroad, and require additional qualification.

Now, again, on the question of fact at issue, please, feel free to present any definitions of the relevant terms and supporting facts to show that the statements were supported by any reasonable basis in fact that would support their use to support the kind of policy they were offered in support of.

No, I'm claiming that correcting an instance of misspeaking is not "backpedalling."

Are you claiming that the replacement offered of "weapons capability" is not weaker than the originally (allegedly mistaken) statement about "weapons", or are you claiming that to replace a stronger claim with a weaker one is not "retreat or withdraw from a position"?

Chairman of the Intelligence Committee a paranoid conspiracy nut?

You should really link to the recently disclosed letter from Hoekstra to the President where he complains the adminstration may be breaking the law. He seems to be paranoid both to believing that the President is underming the congresses oversight, but that also the CIA is undermining the President and also undermining oversight by Congress. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20060709hoekstra.pdf In it he complains about the selection of the Deputy - his first reason for concern is that he perceived Democrats supported the decision! He makes several unsubtantiated claims against Kappes and the CIA.

IMHO the absence of WMDs weakened the case for overthrowing Saddam, but Saddam still had the intention of acquire nukes. It was prudent to overthrow him well before he got a nuclear arsenal.

Since his non-existent progress toward attaining nukes since the prior Gulf War suggested that, abstract intention or no, there was little rational reason to expect that he would get nuclear weapons at any point in the future, I disagree that it was prudent, certainly given the reasonably predictable costs and risks associated with overthrowing him, to do so, absent some additional, more proximate threat warranting those costs.

No, Stefan, GOP says you are a good liar.

Well, I try my best...

Okay, I want to go back to the point that we are responding too seriously to these orchestrated provocations when we should just be making fun of them. Doesn't anyone else see this as an opening for the Dems?

Lots of people (i.e. frat boys and soccer dads) laugh along with Jon Stewart even when they don't grasp the whole context, because common sense tells them that there's an absurd smell hanging around Cheney and Santorum, et al. Shouldn't we be following through on that wedge instead of arguing with Al? I mean, "Al".

It was prudent to overthrow him

I think the resultant mess in Iraq is proof that invading was not prudent.

These imperialistic invasions seldom result in good for the invaded - How many times have US troops landed in Haiti over the past 100 years? What is the poorest country in the Americas?

OT - You guys are being just awful to G-O-Pee today. Obviously, the batteries in his remote are dead, and his mom won't be able to stop at Wal-Mart until after work, and he's very upset.

You are a stupid shit, GOP.

You're a moronic dipshit, Scorpio.

The difference between "weapons" and "weapons capability" is quite clear.

Nonsense. The terms have overlapping and possibly identical meanings depending on the precise meaning attributed to "capability." Any "weapon" is also a "weapon capability." A "weapon capability" may also be a "weapon" depending on what the speaker means by "capability" in the context in which he is speaking.

Almost every industrialized nation in the world has the capability to produce biological and/or chemical weapons. Hence, they are said to have the ability to produce BW/CW weapons. Simply put, they have BW/CW weapons capability.

The term "weapons capability" may include the capability to produce weapons but is not limited to that meaning. Already-produced weapons are also a "weapons capability."

IMHO the absence of WMDs weakened the case for overthrowing Saddam, but Saddam still had the intention of acquire nukes.

North Korea and Iran have the "intention" to acquire nukes (if they haven't done so already). Should we invade them? If not, why?

It was prudent to overthrow him well before he got a nuclear arsenal.

There was no "well before" -- he had no ability to acuqire a nuclear arsenal at all, and had not been engaged in an active pursuit since the Gulf War. We've caused tens of thousands of deaths and squandered hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent something that could never have happened.

Just imagine Saddam invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, and threatening to use nukes if anyone interfered.

Imagine is all we can do, because there was zero real world chance of that ever happening.

Doesn't anyone else see this as an opening for the Dems?

Yes its an opening for the Dems.
But
It almost seems they have too many openings and can’t decide which one to pursue.

ex-liberal,

How would Saddam have done anything nefarious, much less re-invade Kuwait or invade Saudi Arabia, given that we had him completely boxed in with the no-fly zones?

Don't you think we could have stopped him before he got started on some new invasion process?

And, with a beefy ongoing weapons inspections process, how would he have acquired nukes anyway?

I find it amusing that the jihadists infiltrating the CIA would choose to leak important intel to the NY Times, rather than just telling their terrorist buddies themselves.

Nonsense. The terms have overlapping and possibly identical meanings depending on the precise meaning attributed to "capability." Any "weapon" is also a "weapon capability." A "weapon capability" may also be a "weapon" depending on what the speaker means by "capability" in the context in which he is speaking.

You must be studying law or politics. That was the most byzantine paragraph I've ever seen.

Just a question, numb-nuts, if the two terms are overlapping, then why even differentiate?

Why bother with correcting yourself, as Cheney did, when, by your logic, it means basically the same thing?

One could argue that Iranian intelligence penetrated the White House via the Vice President's office. Namely, one Ahmad Chalabi.

I wonder which ME regional power benefits the most from a Shi'ite theocracy in Iraq?

So tell me, does Japan have a nuclear weapons capability? Or can you just jump and say they have nuclear weapons? I mean, it's well known that Japan has the atomic fuel, expertise, technology, and infrastructure to develop nuclear weapons, ie, they have the capability.

Does this mean that it would be accurate to describe them as having nuclear weapons?

Oh yeah, tell me something else, GOP: what happened to all the WMDs that Rumsfeld had pinpointed ("we know where they are")?

Or, is there some other dual meaning in his announcement?

so GOP = Jay ?

GOP == "Don P" == "Atheist"

Did you know Negroponte keeps a prayer rug rolled up under his desk? Didn't think so. MSM covers it up, see?

This crazy argument about finding WMD in Iraq and discussing Cheney's 'belief' that a nuclear weapons program existed before the war is so unhappily symptomatic of the way the Right thinks. Ron Suskind goes into this in his book 'The One Percent Doctrine.' If there is a one percent chance of something being true (e.g., Iraq having nuclear weapons), then the 'probability,' not 'possibility,' of that is given serious consideration and is acted on as a 'belief.' It turns logic on its head. It explains the basis for the 'groupthink' and 'groupspeak' we hear everywhere and on all topics from conservatives. It's what makes thoughtful debate all but impossible with them.

Well, looks like GOP/Don P. has nearly managed to accomplish his troll-goal again: the thread is almost all the way off the tracks.

With his appearance, I expect we'll be seeing Charlie/Doug M. pretty soon.

so GOP = Jay ?

Posted by: cleek on July 13, 2006 at 1:33 PM

No, cleek, GOP = Don P

Beat me to it Alek. Guess he got tired of being called Don Pissypants by Pale Rider.

I think the resultant mess in Iraq is proof that invading was not prudent.

Not only that, but Colin Powell and Bush the Elder both explained why overthrowing Saddam wasn't prudent -- inclding the perils of occupying a Muslim nation, the likelihood of sectarian violence and the probably lack of international support -- 'way back in the '90s.

Bush's All-Stars never had a rebuttal to these points that passed the laugh test, which is why I was skeptical about Bush's lust to invade (that, and taking the eye off the ball in Afghanistan).

But since they had no rebuttal to these obvious points, it was imperative that they raise he boogeyman of WMDs, in order to gin up the threat and make the risk of invading seem less than "doing nothing" (itself a dishonest argument, since pursuing a wholly effective policy of containment and deterrence is not "doing nothing."

Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone could still lack the capability for embarrasment to claim they believed that overthrowing Saddam via military invasion seemed "prudent." To do so is to admit either astonishing gullibility, astonishing analytical deficiencies, or both.

Then again, "ex-liberal" cheerfully displays the usual intelelctual dishonesty -- see: GOP/Don P/Atheist -- of the Bush Cultist (why, oh why, can no one defend Bush honestly?), so why not?

Whatever happened to Pale Rider, anyway?

wonderin asked: How would Saddam have done anything nefarious, much less re-invade Kuwait or invade Saudi Arabia, given that we had him completely boxed in with the no-fly zones?

As I understand it, the no fly zones prevented flights over certain Kurdish areas of Iraq. They did nothing to prevent nuclear research and development.

Don't you think we could have stopped him before he got started on some new invasion process?

Congressional approval of George H. W. Bush's Iraq incursion was a close call. If a nuclear-armed Saddam were to invaded Kuwait, with the mplicit threat to use nukes agaisnt us or Israel, Congress might vote against intervention. Or, a President less warlike than Bush might not take action.

And, with a beefy ongoing weapons inspections process, how would he have acquired nukes anyway?

Recall there had been no inspection process at all since 1998. Saddam grudgingly allowed inspections to resume under the threat of imminent US invasion, and he didn't cooperate proerly with the inspections. Had Bush backed off, I believe Saddam would again have thrown the inspectors out.

Furthermore, there was a growing concensus to end the sanctions against Iraq. I believe the US wouldn't have maintained them much longer, had Bush backed off. Saddam would have been free to resume any weapons programs he want to.

So the GOP Congress, and the ranks of the conservative faithful, has become more Catholic than the Pope, resolving that if the Bush administration won't embrace the WMD claims, someone else must rise to the challenge.

To carry this analogy further, then, one could say that the current GOP Congress and their enablers have become the Opus Dei to Bush's Pope.

And since, as I noted yesterday, Deputy Attorney General Steven Bradbury propounded a new theory of presidential infallibility when he announced that "The President is always right", the circle is complete....

North Korea and Iran have the "intention" to acquire nukes (if they haven't done so already). Should we invade them? If not, why?

I notice you skipped right over the above question, ex-liberal. Wouldn't it be prudent?

If a nuclear-armed Saddam were to invaded Kuwait, with the mplicit threat to use nukes agaisnt us or Israel, Congress might vote against intervention. Or, a President less warlike than Bush might not take action.

Ah, so we had to invade immediately, with no time to lose, because if the US decided to end the sanctions and if Iraq then restarted its weapons research and if that program succeeded so that Saddam acquired nuclear weapons and if he then invaded Saudia Arabia and if he then threatened the use of nukes then a Congress might vote against the war. So we began a costly invasion that will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars a year and bog us down in a guerilla warfare in the heart of the Middle East for years and years to prevent an improbable string of unlikely hypotheticals.

Well, that certainly seems like the prudent thing to have done....

It was prudent to overthrow him

Well, if by prudent you mean a colossal blunder then yeah you're right.

Just imagine Saddam invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia...

I couldn't imagine Bush invading Iraq in the name of 9/11.

Steam has been coming out of Stefan's ears for as long as he's been posting here. He lives in a country and is surrounded by people that he hates.

Stefan, I didn't know you lived in Texas.

How could Hoekstra and Santorum think they could get away with crap like the “discovery” of WMDs & fifth columnist in the CIA etc?
The answer is somewhere here on this thread, or rather all over it.

We still have ex-lib arguing that it was prudent to invade Iraq.
Plus, there’s Doug M asking stupid hypothetical questions and rdw and the rest of ‘em defending every fuckin fuck-up.
And these guys are less rabid and smarter then those morons posting on the conservative blogs.

Hoekstorum and friends throw this shit against the wall, and will continue to, because obviously its going to keep sticking.

Have a nice day.

Stefan, I didn't know you lived in Texas.

I don't know that I would call that "living."

I'll repeat and paraphrase my previous statements, the only thing penetrated by anything are the Repulican Congress - by lobbyists, repeatedly.

stefan asks: North Korea and Iran have the "intention" to acquire nukes (if they haven't done so already). Should we invade them? If not, why?

That's a tough question. In my opinion, it's less prudent to invade these two counties at this moment, because
-- they haven't failed to fulfill a string of 16 or so UN Security Council resolutions.
-- NK is protected by China
-- NK may already have nukes. If so, they could kill millions of people in Seoul.

If the UN could muster its nerve to pass resolutions against Iran, I could imagine a buildup similar to Iraq where invasion become plausible.

Ah, so we had to invade immediately, with no time to lose, because if the US decided to end the sanctions and if Iraq then restarted its weapons research and if that program succeeded so that Saddam acquired nuclear weapons and if he then invaded Saudia Arabia and if he then threatened the use of nukes then a Congress might vote against the war. So we began a costly invasion that will cost us hundreds of billions of dollars a year and bog us down in a guerilla warfare in the heart of the Middle East for years and years to prevent an improbable string of unlikely hypotheticals.

We didn't invade Iraq "immediately." We had grounds to invade Iraq in 1998, when they threw the UN inspectors out. We didn't invade until 5 years later.

Other than that, I agree with your chain of hypotheticals, except that I consider them more likely than you do

The overthrow of Saddam could ultimately do a great deal of good.
1. Freedom to 25 million people;
2. Establish an middle east ally in the war on terror;
3. support ecological improvement in the wetlands;
4. be an inspiration to other middle eastern countries.

All of these have been at least partially achieved. Long term, it's unclear whether these benefits will be realized and maintaqined, but I think there's a good chance that they will be acheivewd over time.

At some point, you just can't argue with the delusional anymore...

And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.

Cheney and GOP must have a different mean of in face in mind.

Oh wait, you're all hung up on the 'we believe' part? So you think its ok to go to war based on beliefs and not facts? Oh fuck all. Stop muddying the waters.

ex-liberal:

We had grounds to invade Iraq in 1998, when they threw the UN inspectors out.

Oh dear god. You truly cannot kill these fairy tales. They will live on in the minds of the stupider members of the U.S. right wing FOREVER.

live on in the minds of the stupider members of the U.S. right wing FOREVER.

And several of the smarter ones too.

And several of the smarter ones too.

Well, the smarter ones -- there must be at least five of them in the U.S. as a whole -- certainly will keep on saying it, but they'll know it's bullshit. The stupid ones like ex-liberal will just keep on parroting it while being totally oblivious.

From Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Weapons

TO Weapons of Mass Destruction (so when nuclear is debunked, they don't have to change their terminology)

To Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs

To Weapons of Mass Desstruction-Related Program Activity (my personal favorite)

To Look Over There -- Rape Rooms!

A bellum looking for a causus.

We had grounds to invade Iraq in 1998, when they threw the UN inspectors out. We didn't invade until 5 years later.

Iraq didn't throw inspectors out, they withdraw on the instruction of the US Ambassador, to avoid the US-British airstrikes.

So, are you going to say that the US directing the inspectors to withdraw in 1998 justified the invasion in 2003?

I see our faithful Trolletariat member GOP, along with aid from ex-liberal, is desperately and frantically trying to derail this thread from the discussion of the actual topic, that being the ludicrous and idiotic claim that the CIA is infiltrated by an actual fifth column out to destroy America and help terrorists by talking to the American media about various programs of dubious legality. That this is even being suggested is bad enough, that the chair of the House Intelligence Committee is putting this forward as a serious proposition demonstrates the utter desperation within the GOP as a result of the lies and fear mongering that was employed via the use of nuclear weapons scares by Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al during the period of late Aug 2002 until just a couple of weeks prior to the 2002 midterm elections in their desire to get authorization to invade Iraq. Remember, this idea was not selling with the American people until the nuclear claims started being made in that period.

We know that the "intelligence" which convinced Bushco was either extensively flawed or non-existent completely (indeed arguably one example is hard to see as anything other than a deliberate fiction/lie, that being the Sept 7 2002 Camp David press Conference with Bush/Blair where both men claimed the IAEA has issued a report claiming Saddam could be as close as 6 months to a nuclear device. It was three weeks before the American media reported that no such report had EVER been issued by the IAEA and by then the mushroom cloud being a smoking gun rhetoric had been in full voice for a couple of weeks causing few to notice this piece of discrediting of this claim) throughout the nuclear argument. We know the uranium from Niger was totally dismissed after three separate investigations into it and only was resurrected because of Cheney and the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon bypassing all the vetting protocols in the intelligence community. We know that the aluminum tubes only being fit for uranium centrifuges was totally bogus by the most qualified American intelligence agency for such, that being the Dept of Energy. Which given this was the *SOLE* piece of physical "evidence" supporting the nuclear claims was no small deception.

Basically months before the invasion even started every single piece of "evidence" offered by Bushco and the GOP that any nuclear threat existed from Saddam's Iraq was discredited by America's own intelligence experts. In other words the same intelligence community which was scapegoated to provide Bushco and the GOP with political cover for this fiasco were actually the ones that had the most accurate understanding of the reality within Iraq at that time. So far from Iraq proving the American intelligence community was broken and completely out to lunch instead Iraq proved the American intelligence community was right and it was those that refused to accept that community's verdict and instead set up an independent agency within the Pentagon run by political appointees and devotees of the neoconservative ideology with no oversight, no vetting protocols, and only one criteria to its mission that were the ones suffering from "groupthink". Indeed, the one criteria for the Office of Special Plans was whether the intelligence suited their ideological/faith based belief of the nuclear threat by Iraq. Who else was willing to take single sourced intelligence as gospel, especially when that single source was one with a prior history of not being at all reliable? Why only the Office of Special Plans of course, which was a deliberate bypass of the actual trained and professional intelligence experts America has trained and employed for the last several decades.

This is of course why we are seeing this idiocy now. The intelligence community being full of traitors and spies working for America's enemies is the last refuge the GOP have to deflect Americans from seeing that the sole problem with the intelligence and arguments going into Iraq came from a bunch of politicians more interested in their own private agendas (whatever they might have been, seeing as there are so many to chose between) as well as using this as a means to increase their political strength in the domestic elections. That the GOP took the goodwill and trust of Americans after 9/11/01 and twisted it for domestic political purposes without any regard for there being any threat aside from that at the ballot box for the GOP.

Remember, it was the Democratically controlled Senate which required a NIE be done before the Iraq authorization vote. That is the biggest piece of evidence that the threat claims regarding Iraq was based in political belief and not intelligence assessment. When else has America ever taken serious military action (post WWII) without an NIE being done to determine the sum total of available intelligence on that threat within the American intelligence community? Not to mention this being done in a few weeks when the historical evidence is that these normally are done over a period of a few months.

It was always the nuclear claims that moved the opinion of Americans into the belief that Saddam represented a threat that had to be dealt with at that time, and the American people (outside the Kool-Aid drinkers that is) remember that. This is why this is so dangerous for the GOP and why they are so desperate to prevent examination of this, even to the point of making the kind of claims we see raised in the topic of this post by Kevin Drum. Unfortunately for the GOP and Bushco their credibility on this matter has been destroyed so instead of this being an effective defence it is far more likely to be seen by most as a sign of utter desperation to avoid responsibility for their mistakes, misjudgments and arguably lies to launch a full scale war of invasion pre-eminently (something that used to be equated with Hitler and the Nazis and not America and democracies) against a nation that was no threat in reality before the invasion and has since massively weakened the American Army, blown around a half trillion dollars, cost over 2500 American military lives, and left tends of thousands of American personnel with permanent injuries and disabilities (the reason these numbers are so high and the fatalities low is because of advances in military protections as well as in combat medicine, not because the threat is any less dangerous than was true during the Vietnam guerilla warfare casualties) and destroyed America's moral authority/credibility throughout the world even in other democracies.

It was Bushco and the GOP that saw intelligence operations as a political tool against their domestic enemies, abused their authority to force that group to provide what they wanted to see instead of what actually was the assessments of that community, and when that community was unwilling/unable to provide the proof the GOP/Bushco demanded set up a political intelligence operation bypassing all the normal procedures. Therefore they are solely to blame for the massive failures of intelligence and operational planning for dealing with Iraq. Not to mention letting Osama get away in Afghanistan by not committing the proper force levels when it would have done good because they wanted it for Iraq. This is not the fault of the profession intelligence services, they did their best and their best was far more accurate and corresponding with reality than what Bushco came out with via the Office of Special Plans.

What makes this particularly sickening though is that all recognize that in asymmetrical warfare intelligence capabilities are one of if not the most important tools in successfully fighting such conflicts. That the GOP House Committee head overseeing Intelligence is more concerned with covering his and his party's political tails than in strengthening the capabilities and credibility of American intelligence services shows more than anything else just how unqualified and unsuited for dealing with national security issues the GOP is in reality. The GOP have a great myth about being better on national security issues, too bad for them that this has no evidence that actually shows this to be true. This is just the latest evidence of this, as well as further evidence that for all the talk of moral values and accountability/personal responsibility being something the GOP believes in whereas their opposition does not the reality is quite the opposite. The GOP cannot find scapegoats fast enough when things go wrong yet never fail to take credit for anything that goes right regardless of actual basis/merits in doing so. That the GOP is more interested in yet further damaging the intelligence community for political asscovering even after all the other damage they have done conclusively shows they are unfit to govern and also have definitively and possibly decisively weakened America and less secure over the last several years, both in the short term and over the longer term as well.

That is why this is important to deal with and why the GOP cannot be allowed to distract people from this reality. Which is of course why the Trolletariat here are so desperate to derail this discussion. Do not let them.

Help Mom, there are jihadists in my intelligence organization!

Actually, we say we mean the exact type that the Bush regime was claiming existed when Cheney said that Iraq "has reconstituted nuclear weapons" and Condi Rice said "we can't allow the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" -- nuclear weapons. The Bush regime made specific claims that Iraq had acquired and/or was on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons, claims which were all revealed to be completely and utterly false.

Stefan - I agree that the types of weapons claimed by the Bushies weren't there. They were wrong, and Bush had admitted as much.

It's too bad that anti-Bush people have overstated their complaint a bit. If they all said it your way, I'd have no problem.

IMHO the absence of WMDs weakened the case for overthrowing Saddam, but Saddam still had the intention of acquire nukes. It was prudent to overthrow him well before he got a nuclear arsenal. Just imagine Saddam invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, and threatening to use nukes if anyone interfered.

我向大家推荐:上海 叉车租赁 公司专业生产叉车租赁产品，欢迎选择叉车租赁。压滤机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的压滤机,丰富压滤机行业资讯助您成交。上海 超声波清洗机 公司专业生产超声波清洗机产品，欢迎选择超声波清洗机。上海 吸塑机/高频机 公司专业生产吸塑机/高频机产品，欢迎选择吸塑机/高频机。中国 离心机 网，打造离心机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球离心机品牌公司及产品展示。上海 清洗机 公司专业生产清洗机产品，欢迎选择清洗机。要想寻找粉碎机信息请访问 粉碎机 网，各种粉碎机应有尽有。上海 工程机械 公司专业生产工程机械产品，欢迎选择工程机械。中国 挖机/挖土机 网，打造挖机/挖土机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球挖机/挖土机品牌公司及产品展示。露点仪 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的露点仪,丰富露点仪行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找传动机械信息请访问 传动机械 网，各种传动机械应有尽有。北京 减速机 厂向广大客户提供减速机产品及减速机服务。上海 汽车吊 公司专业生产汽车吊产品，欢迎选择汽车吊。北京 二手挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供二手挖掘机产品及二手挖掘机服务。压路机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的压路机,丰富压路机行业资讯助您成交。上海 除湿机 公司专业生产除湿机产品，欢迎选择除湿机。北京 二手挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供二手挖掘机产品及二手挖掘机服务。上海 二手挖掘机 公司专业生产二手挖掘机产品，欢迎选择二手挖掘机。您想要了解 减速机 吗？请到中国减速机网来寻找减速机。北京 升降机 厂向广大客户提供升降机产品及升降机服务。北京 减速机 厂向广大客户提供减速机产品及减速机服务。二手挖掘机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的二手挖掘机,丰富二手挖掘机行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 鹤壁通用机械厂 吗？请到中国鹤壁通用机械厂网来寻找鹤壁通用机械厂。要想寻找电磁振动给料机信息请访问 电磁振动给料机 网，各种电磁振动给料机应有尽有。防闭塞装置 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的防闭塞装置,丰富防闭塞装置行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解 仓壁振动器 吗？请到中国仓壁振动器网来寻找仓壁振动器。北京 离心机 厂向广大客户提供离心机产品及离心机服务。北京 离心机 厂向广大客户提供离心机产品及离心机服务。中国 减速机 网，打造减速机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球减速机品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找平衡机信息请访问 平衡机 网，各种平衡机应有尽有。北京 喷码机 厂向广大客户提供喷码机产品及喷码机服务。上海 升降机 公司专业生产升降机产品，欢迎选择升降机。北京 缠绕机/包装机械 厂向广大客户提供缠绕机/包装机械产品及缠绕机/包装机械服务。二手挖掘机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的二手挖掘机,丰富二手挖掘机行业资讯助您成交。压片机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的压片机,丰富压片机行业资讯助您成交。北京 二手挖掘机 厂向广大客户提供二手挖掘机产品及二手挖掘机服务。要想寻找离心机信息请访问 离心机 网，各种离心机应有尽有。北京 减速机 厂向广大客户提供减速机产品及减速机服务。挖掘机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的挖掘机,丰富挖掘机行业资讯助您成交。上海 磁选机 公司专业生产磁选机产品，欢迎选择磁选机。要想寻找离心机信息请访问 离心机 网，各种离心机应有尽有。中国 橡胶机械 网，打造橡胶机械领域专业搜索平台，提供全球橡胶机械品牌公司及产品展示。标记机/打标机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的标记机/打标机,丰富标记机/打标机行业资讯助您成交。减速机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的减速机,丰富减速机行业资讯助您成交。挖掘机 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的挖掘机,丰富挖掘机行业资讯助您成交。液压登车桥 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的液压登车桥,丰富液压登车桥行业资讯助您成交。上海 升降平台 公司专业生产升降平台产品，欢迎选择升降平台。要想寻找升降台信息请访问 升降台 网，各种升降台应有尽有。上海 升降机 公司专业生产升降机产品，欢迎选择升降机。北京 真空吸盘 厂向广大客户提供真空吸盘产品及真空吸盘服务。中国 激光切割机 网，打造激光切割机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球激光切割机品牌公司及产品展示。上海 叉车租赁 公司专业生产叉车租赁产品，欢迎选择叉车租赁。

Now we know why Hoekstra was kept out of the loop!

Seriously, isn't it time we took the car keys away from these guys?

"I'm glad somebody is out there protecting our precious bodily fluids."

Yup! Hoekstra, Santorum, and Col. Jack T. Ripper!
Hehe :D

That's General to you, Gray.

cmdicely,

Since his non-existent progress toward attaining nukes since the prior Gulf War suggested that, abstract intention or no, there was little rational reason to expect that he would get nuclear weapons at any point in the future,

Nonsense. As Kenneth Pollack put it: "What we have learned since the fall of Baghdad is that Saddam remained determined to acquire these weapons at some point in the future and had preserved rudimentary elements of the programs, which he intended to use to rebuild them after the sanctions were lifted." The WMD threat had receded, but the idea that it had been eliminated is simply wrong.

Gregory,

Frankly, I'm astonished that anyone could still lack the capability for embarrasment to claim they believed that overthrowing Saddam via military invasion seemed "prudent."

Your "astonishment" says more about your own dishonesty or willful blindness to the facts than it does about anyone's capability for embarrassment. The decision to invade Iraq was supported not only by conservatives but also by many liberals, hawkish and otherwise, who understood the immense harm Saddam's continued control of Iraq was causing to the people of that country, and the immense threat he posed to regional and global security and to America's vital national interests.

Nice to have you back G-O-Pee
Hope you've calmed down a bit
You were sounding a little ragged earlier.

I know its tough here in the trenches
slugging it out daily with guys who's IQs double yours.
Plus, having to defend Prezzidint Dipshit.

I think your doin a fine job and commend you for it.

But there was no WMD threat from Saddam.
Saddam was a tin pot dictator -
no different than those many banana republic Generals whom the US has propped up over the years.

Sorry, two differences - Oil & Israel

kevin >"...我向大家推荐...欢迎选择叉车租赁。"

Outsourcing eah ?

Diggin deep for trolls they are...

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

Stefan,

North Korea and Iran have the "intention" to acquire nukes (if they haven't done so already). Should we invade them? If not, why?

Because they don't pose a sufficient humanitarian or security threat to justify such an action.

There was no "well before" -- he had no ability to acuqire a nuclear arsenal at all,

You cannot possibly know that to be true. Not only had Saddam preserved components of his WMD programs that could have been reactivated when the sanctions were lifted (you know, those same sanctions that had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians), or perhaps even with the sanctions still in place, but he had amassed billions of dollars from sanctions violations and from his manipulation of the oil-for-food program, with which he might have been able to purchase nuclear weapons.

We've caused tens of thousands of deaths and squandered hundreds of billions of dollars to prevent something that could never have happened.

Your sanctions had caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Saddam had caused hundreds of thousands more. How many more Iraqi civilians would you like to have seen die as a result of your failed "containment" policy?

Imagine is all we can do, because there was zero real world chance of that ever happening.

Another absurd claim.

The decison to invade Iraq was supported by fools of many flavors: but people who knew their shit, people like Zinni or Odom or Newbold (who was the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs) - the sort of people who occupy the War College - knew that it was fucking stupid.
The President knows nothing about such issus, nor does he care to learn; when he ignores the experts, as he did, foreign policy turns into a drunkard's walk.

As for those who cling to this corpse of a policy out of party loyalty or cognitive dissonance or because many of those damn liberals oppose it: fucking grow up.

The decison to invade Iraq was supported by fools of many flavors: but people who knew their shit, people like Zinni

In his testimony to Congress in March 2000, General Zinni stated the following:

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), persistent threats to enforcement of the No Fly Zones (NFZ), and continued efforts to violate UN Security Council sanctions through oil smuggling,"

"While Iraq's WMD capabilities were degraded under UN supervision and set back by Coalition strikes, some capabilities remain and others could quickly be regenerated. Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW payloads. Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

Zinni thought invading Iraq was a mistake. You know that, right? You're not trying to suggest that he _liked_ the idea, are you - cause that'd be a lie. And liars are for burning. As for what Zinni is quoted as saying, it was the official government line at the time and it was all false of course: obviously false. I knew that they had no nuclear program -because I'm a physicist. I can count. Don't you wish you could count? I know what a nuclear program requires, I know what it costs: in particular, I know how much an _invisible_ nuclear weapons program costs, one that shows no signs of any kind to our national technical means such as spy satellites. Like any good citizen, I know the resolution of those satellites, their multipectral capabilities, etc..
I also knew how much money Iraq had available to run their entire state: between 1 and 1.5 billion dollars - a number which took me about 15 minuts to determine from publicly availably sources and was confirmed in detail by later surveys such as the Duelfer report. The CIA didn't manage this, because they're morons. Like you, only not so much.

I knew that Iraq had no extended-range missile program because there been ZERO launches: you can't have a missile-development program without launches. DSP would detect any such launch: you must know about DSP, right, if you're so chock-full of fucking _opinions_ about national security? I mean, you'd have to: the world couldn't be full of people bloviating about national security issues who don't know a fucking thing, haven't even read the fucking Smythe report. That would be wrong. In fact, people like Bush and Cheney must (as a secret hobby, natch) know far more about (for example) Hoppe-style centrifuges used for isotope separation that the people at DOE who actually design them, since the Fools at the Top ignored those technical experts when they said that there was no way, repeat NO WAY that those famous aluminum tubs were for isotope separation.

Every fucking bit of the last three years hsa been obvious. it was obvious that, broke as hell and as technically talentd as a sheltered workshop, Iraq had no superweapons program. It was obvious that they were just sitting there rotting: no longer starving becasue of oil-for-food, but rotting as a state. It was obvious that'd we'd piss off nearly everyone on Earth by committing gormless aggressive war. It was likely that we'd face a hideously expensive and strategically pointless guerrilla war.

And you think that's just dandy: peachy-keen.
The US should be driven to bankruptcy, rather than admit that we've elected a halfwit.
Well, you're a fucking traitor.

Shorter ex-liberal thinking:

"You know, I should probably blow up my neighbor's house and kill his entire family because he has the capability to go buy a gun and shoot me when I'm going out to get the mail, and the looks he's been giving me indicate that he probably will do so within the next year."

Tell me - is it scary living with such a delusional and fucked-up worldview that sees bogeyman around every corner ?

Your "astonishment" says more about your own dishonesty or willful blindness to the facts than it does about anyone's capability for embarrassment. The decision to invade Iraq was supported not only by conservatives but also by many liberals, hawkish and otherwise, who understood the immense harm Saddam's continued control of Iraq was causing to the people of that country, and the immense threat he posed to regional and global security and to America's vital national interests.

Your use of the word "understood" in context of Saddam's alleged threat says more about your own dishonesty or willful blindness to the facts than it does about any realistic depiction of the situation. Any "understanding" supporters of the war had regarding Iraq's so-called threat was the result of a mistake -- as many of the supporters you cite, including our host, now admit -- delusion or a deliberate deception on the part of the Bush Administration.

Furthermore, the claim that Iraq posed a threat to the United States is a dog that just won't hunt any more. When you throw in your absolutely indefensible assertion that Iraq posed more of a security threat than Iran or North Korea (or in the latter's case, humanitarian, when tens of thousands, are estimated to have died from famine), and you assert, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that containment was a failed policy, you prove your own dishonesty, willful blindness-- or more likely, both -- conclusively.

As Kenneth Pollack put it: "What we have learned since the fall of Baghdad is that Saddam remained determined to acquire these weapons at some point in the future and had preserved rudimentary elements of the programs, which he intended to use to rebuild them after the sanctions were lifted."

All of which is perfectly consistent with my characterization that, intention or no, Saddam had made no actual progress since the first Gulf War, and there was no rational reason to expect any substantial likelihood of him attaining nuclear arms at any time during the lifespan of his regime.

Particularly, the suggestion that he had plans to reconstituted programs only if and when sanctions were lifted of course could not make him any kind of nuclear threat so long as sanctions were in place; it was an argument for maintaining sanctions, but not for invasion so long as the sanctions were not lifted.

Fool's test
My forgettery is in excellent shape.
GWoT stands for
George's War of Terror
George's War on Truth

Which was it again ?